Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Influence of Directive 2008/99/EC on the Harmonization and Renewal of the Lexicon of Environmental Criminal Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union

  • 776 Accesses

Abstract

According to recent developments of European law, the phenomenon of the “flow of concepts in a multilingual world” can be examined with reference to environmental criminal law. In this field, Directive 2008/99/EC can serve as a benchmark from which progress towards the creation of genuinely “European” criminal law may be measured. The discrepancies between the terminology of the European legislator and the national legal lexicon are worth noting because they imply the introduction of several innovations in Italian criminal law, which may be considered from the following four perspectives: (a) terminological issues, (b) terminological issues with structural implications, (c) categories of criminal law, (d) principles of criminal law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On Directive 2008/99/EC, see Benozzo (2009), pp. 299–304; Lo Monte (2009), pp. 231–245; Plantamura (2009), pp. 911–921; Satta (2010), pp. 1222–1230; Siracusa (2008a), pp. 863–900; id. 2008b, http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it, pp. 1–22; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 449–492; Vergine (2009), pp. 5–14.

  2. 2.

    Many factors interact and determine the affinity rate between criminal law systems: often the affinity is due not only to a written law or case law influence but also to particularly authoritative juridical doctrines. Consequently, criminal law-specific lexicon is complex by nature: just because it expresses the criminal law conceptual scheme, this lexicon is created by many factors, not only the lawmaker but also jurisprudence, the law operators, and the scientific community. About the flow of juridical models, see Grande (2000). About the interaction between different factors (especially, jurisprudence and the academic world), see Braun (2006), pp. 235 ff.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 5.

  4. 4.

    See Mannozzi and Consulich (2006), pp. 899–943; Marcolini (2006), pp. 240–247; Pelissero (2010), pp. 661–680, especially pp. 668 ff.; Siracusa (2008c), pp. 241–275; id. 2008a, pp. 866 ff.; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 449 ff.

  5. 5.

    Siracusa (2008a), p. 871. According to Recital 12 of Directive 2008/99/EC, “this Directive provides for minimum rules”.

  6. 6.

    Considering that European legislator’s lexical choices are of great importance in this research, see activities listed in Article 3 Directive 2008/99/EC: “(a) the discharge, emission or introduction of a quantity of materials or ionizing radiation into air, soil or water, which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (b) the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of waste, including the supervision of such operations and the aftercare of disposal sites, and including action taken as a dealer or a broker (waste management), which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (c) the shipment of waste, where this activity falls within the scope of Article 2(35) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (1) and is undertaken in a non-negligible quantity, whether executed in a single shipment or in several shipments which appear to be linked; (d) the operation of a plant in which a dangerous activity is carried out or in which dangerous substances or preparations are stored or used and which, outside the plant, causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (e) the production, processing, handling, use, holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial damage to the quality of air, the quality of soil or the quality of water, or to animals or plants; (f) the killing, destruction, possession or taking of specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species, except for cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of such specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species; (g) trading in specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species or parts or derivatives thereof, except for cases where the conduct concerns a negligible quantity of such specimens and has a negligible impact on the conservation status of the species; (h) any conduct which causes the significant deterioration of a habitat within a protected site; (i) the production, importation, exportation, placing on the market or use of ozone-depleting substances”.

  7. 7.

    See Siracusa (2008b), pp. 17 ff.; Sotis (2010a), pp. 21 ff.; id. 2010b, pp. 1146–1166; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 464 ff.

  8. 8.

    With regard to the dichotomy that distinguishes between a strong model of environmental criminal law and a weak one, see A. Gargani (2010), pp. 403–430. About the protection model provided by Directive 2008/99/EC, see Siracusa (2008a), pp. 879 ff.; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 485 ff. According to Sotis (2010a), pp. 5 ff., however, the directive in question “leads to an incorrect use of punishment according to the extrema ratio criminal law principle (…) [and violates] the principle of proportionality/necessity of punishment in its utilitarian meaning, i.e. referring to the capacity of punishment to safeguard concretely the protected good”. On this item, see also Abbadessa (2009), pp. 478 ff.; Lo Monte (2009), pp. 238 ff.

  9. 9.

    See Article 3 letts (a), (b), (d), (e) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.

  10. 10.

    See Article 3 letts (f), (g), (h) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.

  11. 11.

    See Article 3 letts (a), (b), (d), (e) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.

  12. 12.

    See Article 3 letts (f), (g) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.

  13. 13.

    See Article 3 lett. (h) Directive 2008/99/EC in n. 6.

  14. 14.

    See Ruga Riva (2010), p. 6, where the author mentions crimes such as “water poisoning, water damaging, dangerously throwing of things, environmental disaster, manslaughter or personal injury, possibly in concurrence with “sectorial” technical offences”.

  15. 15.

    See Article 727-bis Italian Criminal Code (Uccisione, distruzione, cattura, prelievo o possesso di esemplari di specie animali o vegetali selvatiche protette) and Article 733-bis Italian Criminal Code (Danneggiamento di habitat).

  16. 16.

    See Article 2 Law 4th June 2010 n. 96. See Ruga Riva (2010), pp. 4 ff.; Sotis (2010b), pp. 13 ff.; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 490 ff.

  17. 17.

    About this item, see Relazione illustrativa allo schema di decreto legislativo, p. 7. With regard to Directive 2008/99/EC’s enforcement by Legislative Decree n. 121/2011, see Madeo (2011), pp. 1052–1065; Pistorelli and Scarcella (2011), pp. 1–37; Ruga Riva (2011), pp. 1–18; Scarcella (2011), pp. 854–859; Scoletta (2012), pp. 17 ff.

  18. 18.

    See Siracusa (2008a), p. 889. About the type of reference made by Directive 2008/99/EC to environmental national legislation adopted pursuant to EC Treaty and listed in Directive’s Annex A, see id. 2008b, pp. 8 ff.

  19. 19.

    According to Recital 9 of Directive 2008/99/EC, “The obligations under this Directive only relate to the provisions of the legislation listed in the Annexes to this Directive which entail an obligation for Member States, when implementing that legislation, to provide for prohibitive measures”.

  20. 20.

    See, on the contrary, Benozzo (2009), pp. 301 ff.

  21. 21.

    See Sotis (2010b), pp. 7 ff.

  22. 22.

    See, for instance, the options of simple bankruptcy provided by Art. 217 Royal-Decree 16th March 1942 n. 267, which punishes the entrepreneur who wasted his patrimony by gambling or managing it rashly (Art. 217 § 1 n. 2) or tried to defer his bankruptcy by means of very rash transactions (n. 3) or made his financial difficulties worse because he didn’t file his petition in bankruptcy or was anyhow very careless about managing his business firm (n. 4). See Lo Monte (2009), p. 241.

  23. 23.

    See Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 485 ff.

  24. 24.

    See Art. 16 lett. (e) of the Scheme of enabling act for reforming Italian Penal Code called “Progetto Pisapia”.

  25. 25.

    See Lo Monte (2009), pp. 239 ff.; Sotis (2010b), pp. 6 ff.; Vagliasindi (2010), pp. 485 ff.

  26. 26.

    See Art. 3 letts (a), (b), (d), (e) Directive 2008/99/EC, which has substantially the same meaning in the other versions hereby examined: in German, “erhebliche Schäden”; in English, “substantial damage”; in French, “dégradation substantielle”; in Spanish, “daños sustanciales”. It is interesting to notice that the seriousness of damage or concrete danger is not a component of the structure of crime fact in the Italian criminal system but a parameter for proportioning the punishment (Art. 133 § 2 n. 2 Italian Penal Code).

  27. 27.

    See Art. 3 letts (c), (g) Directive 2008/99/EC, which has substantially the same meaning in the other versions hereby examined: in German, “in nicht unerheblicher Menge” vs. “eine unerheblicher Menge”; in English, “non-negligible quantity” vs. “negligible quantity”; in French, “quantité non négligeable” vs. “quantité négligeable”; in Spanish, “cantidad no desdeñable” vs. “cantidad insignificante”.

  28. 28.

    See Art. 3 lett. (g) Directive 2008/99/EC. In the other versions hereby examined likewise: in German, “unerhebliche Auswirkungen”; in English, “negligible impact”; in French, “impact négligeable”; in Spanish, “consecuencias insignificantes”.

  29. 29.

    See Art. 3 lett. (h) Directive 2008/99/EC. In the other versions likewise: in German, “eine erhebliche Schädigung”; in English, “significant deterioration”; in French, “dégradation importante”; in Spanish, “deterioro significativo”.

  30. 30.

    See D’Amico (2000), pp. 11 ff.; Ciommo (2007), pp. 105–128; Fanchiotti (2009), pp. 754–765; Palombella (2009a), pp. 334 ff.; id. 2009b, pp. 27–66; Pinelli (2007), pp. 129–139; Vagliasindi (1999), pp. 277 ff., 283 ff.

  31. 31.

    About the harm principle as “a parameter of control of legislative options in criminal law”, see Manes (2011), pp. 2 ff.; id. 2005, especially pp. 209 ff., pp. 242 ff.

  32. 32.

    As regards the relation between translation praxis and options made in the field of (European and national) law politics, see Rossi (2007), pp. 139–147.

  33. 33.

    See, however, Ruga Riva (2010), pp. 23 ff., with regard to the new setting outlined by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Abbreviations

CJEC:

Court of Justice of the European Community

EU:

European Union

TFEU:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

References

  • Abbadessa G (2009) Dal “diritto penale comunitario” al diritto penale della nuova Unione Europea: problematica dell’interregno. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell’economia, No. 3, pp 457–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Benozzo M (2009) La direttiva sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente tra intenzionalità, grave negligenza e responsabilità delle persone giuridiche. In: Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell’ambiente, No. 5, pp 299–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun A (2006) Giudici e accademia nell’esperienza inglese. Storia di un dialogo. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico M (2000) Qualità della legislazione, diritto penale e principi costituzionali. In: Rivista di diritto costituzionale, pp 3–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Ciommo M (2007) The Effective Protection of Rights and the Rule of Law Nowadays: The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the UK’s Constitutional Law. In: Teoria del diritto e dello Stato. Rivista di cultura e scienza giuridica, No. 1, pp 105–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanchiotti V (2009) Il revival della rule of law. In: Cassazione penale, No. 2, pp 754–765

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargani A (2010) La protezione immediata dell’ambiente tra obblighi comunitari di incriminazione e tutela giudiziaria. In: Vinciguerra S, Dassano F (eds) Scritti in memoria di Giuliano Marini. ESI, Napoli, pp 403–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande E (2000) Imitazione e diritto: ipotesi sulla circolazione dei modelli. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo Monte E (2009) La direttiva 2008/99/CE sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente: una (a dir poco) problematica attuazione. In: Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell’ambiente, No. 4, pp 231–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeo A (2011) Un recepimento solo parziale della Direttiva 2008/99/CE sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente. In: Diritto penale e processo, No. 9, pp 1052–1065

    Google Scholar 

  • Manes V (2005) Il principio di offensività nel diritto penale. Canone di politica criminale, criterio ermeneutico, parametro di ragionevolezza. Giappichelli, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Manes V (2011) I recenti tracciati della giurisprudenza costituzionale in materia di offensività e ragionevolezza. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011

  • Mannozzi G, Consulich F (2006) La sentenza della Corte di Giustizia C-176/03: riflessi penalistici in tema di principio di legalità e politica dei beni giuridici. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell’economia, No. 4, pp 899–943

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcolini S (2006) Decisione quadro o direttiva per proteggere l’ambiente attraverso il diritto penale? In: Cassazione penale, No. 1, pp 240–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Palombella G (2009a) Il Rule of law oltre lo Stato. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, No. 2, pp 325–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Palombella G (2009b) Il Rule of Law. Argomenti di una teoria (giuridica) istituzionale. In: Sociologia del diritto, No. 1, pp 27–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelissero M (2010) Dalle sollecitazioni della giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia al Trattato di Lisbona: il rafforzamento della politica penale dell’Unione Europea. In: Vinciguerra S, Dassano F (eds) Scritti in memoria di Giuliano Marini. ESI, Napoli, pp 661–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli C (2007) Rule of Law: The Waning of the English v. Continental Dichotomy and the Emergence of a European Legal Order. In: Teoria del diritto e dello Stato. Rivista di cultura e scienza giuridica, No. 1, pp 129–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistorelli L, Scarcella A (2011) Relazione dell’Ufficio del Massimario presso la Corte Suprema di Cassazione. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011

  • Plantamura V (2009) Una nuova frontiera europea per il diritto penale. In: Diritto penale e processo, No. 7, pp 911–921

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi P (2007) Il diritto plurilingue europeo nella prospettiva del legislatore comunitario e dell’interprete nazionale. In: Politica del diritto, No. 1, pp 139–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruga Riva C (2010) Il recepimento delle direttive comunitarie sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente: grandi novità per le persone giuridiche, poche per le persone fisiche. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011

  • Ruga Riva C (2011) Il decreto legislativo di recepimento delle direttive comunitarie sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente: nuovi reati, nuova responsabilità degli enti da reato ambientale. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011

  • Satta A (2010) Gli obblighi comunitari di tutela penale ambientale alla luce della direttiva 2008/99/CE e del Trattato di Lisbona. In: Rivista penale, No. 12, pp 1222–1230

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarcella A (2011) Nuovi “ecoreati” ed estensione ai reati ambientali del D.Lgs. n. 231/2001 sulla responsabilità degli enti. In: Ambiente & Sviluppo, No. 10, pp 854–859

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoletta M (2012) Obblighi europei di criminalizzazione e responsabilità degli enti per reati ambientali (Note a margine del d.lgs. n. 121/2011 attuativo delle direttive comunitarie sulla tutela dell’ambiente). In: Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente, No. 1, pp 17–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Siracusa L (2008a) La competenza comunitaria in ambito penale al primo banco di prova: la direttiva europea sulla tutela penale dell’ambiente. In: Rivista trimestrale di diritto penale dell’economia, No. 4, pp 863–900

    Google Scholar 

  • Siracusa L (2008b) L’attuazione della Direttiva europea sulla tutela dell’ambiente tramite il diritto penale. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011

  • Siracusa L (2008c) Verso la comunitarizzazione della potestà normativa penale: un nuovo “tassello” della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea. In: Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, No. 1, pp 241–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Sotis C (2010a) I principi di necessità e proporzionalità della pena nel diritto dell’Unione europea dopo Lisbona. http://www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 13 luglio 2011

  • Sotis C (2010b) Il Trattato di Lisbona e le competenze penali dell’Unione europea. In: Cassazione penale, No. 3, pp 1146–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagliasindi GM (1999) Diritto penale ambientale e diretta efficacia delle direttive comunitarie. In: Cassazione penale, No. 1, pp 269–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagliasindi GM (2010) La direttiva 2008/99/CE e il Trattato di Lisbona: verso un nuovo volto del diritto penale ambientale italiano. In: Diritto del commercio internazionale, No. 3, pp 449–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergine AL (2009) Nuovi orizzonti del diritto penale ambientale? In: Ambiente & Sviluppo, No. 1, pp 5–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Economics and Culture, University of Insubria, Via M.E. Bossi No. 5, 22100, Como, Italy

    Chiara Perini

Authors
  1. Chiara Perini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Perini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Law, Economics and Culture, University of Insubria, Como, Italy

    Francesca Ruggieri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Perini, C. (2014). The Influence of Directive 2008/99/EC on the Harmonization and Renewal of the Lexicon of Environmental Criminal Law. In: Ruggieri, F. (eds) Criminal Proceedings, Languages and the European Union. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37152-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation